Rhetoric, Violence, and Redemption

When it comes to talking about responses to the election, it is easy to say, "Stay on point. Talk about the substantive issues that won Trump enough electoral votes to become the presumptive president–elect."

But the spin put on the issues (e.g. it’s not just immigration policies we are talking about, but rather the deportation of entire ‘undesirable’ populations, who are linked to drug trafficking, rape, and crime) makes bullying (repeated dismissive, contemptuous, degrading, slanted rhetoric) the issue.

While it is precisely this issue of social violence that enough of the country deplores, while parents and educators scramble to explain ‘a bully winning’ to our youth, others have begun to respond in what psychologists would tell us are expected, and even predictable ways: with violence.

Violence is a response—if not a re-action—to rejection and shame. When any of us are ridiculed, publicly humiliated, and/or made to feel inadequate there is a fair chance we will become angry, and respond aggressively. Sniggers, taunts, rumors and deliberate rejection can be like pokes to a hornet’s nest—and ‘poking fun’ can elicit dangerous, at times furious, rebuttals. (This is hardly something known only to therapists. As noted in an earlier post, it is something even the NFL well knows, and has worked hard to rein in.)

More knee-jerk than measured response, violent backlashes (our own, or those we witness) usually strike us as difficult –if not impossible--to interrupt. Anger is not only expected (we catch our breath and wait, expectantly, when we witness another’s humiliation) it is often considered a legitimate, even automatic, reaction.

This may well be because aggression, as a reaction to humiliation, is hard-wired into our brains. Many neuro-psychologists link shame to ‘belongingness needs’ in order to explain the ongoing significance of social bonds. They argue that there is an ongoing need for acceptance and affirmation, one that can be traced to our evolutionary history. “In order to succeed, a species must possess some adaptive trait that allows it to negotiate the environment. Birds have their wings, the turtle has its shell; mankind has the tribe, the city and the civilization. Complex social systems such as culture are a major biological strategy of humankind.” (Crescioni and Baumeister, 2009). In other words, “human beings evolved to rely on group interaction as their main biological strategy. With no fangs, no claws, no fur . . . human beings are not well suited to living alone” (Baumeister and deWall 2005, 54). It was important to belong to the group, as threats from the external world were better met when efforts were pooled. Being shamed and outcast had significant—even dire—consequences, as a break in connection would, like physical injury, threaten survival.

And indeed, it can still be shown that social pain—rejection, shame, disrespect—continues to resonate in the ‘pain center’ of the brain, no differently than physical (‘nociceptive’) pain (see N. Eisenberger, 2004-2016; C. Nathan deWall, 2009; Macdonald and Leary 2005).
Rejection from the group still hurts. Still fundamentally threatens our well-being.

Add to this the fact that when the ‘pain center’ of our brain is called into play it impairs our cognitive capacities, and violent responses can be readily understood. Our ability for rational thought—for restraint and self-control—is diminished—sometimes severely.

So, pained by the disrespect and rejection of Trump and his supporters—and, for some, by the immediate threat to their well-being and inclusion in the safety provided by the US, with its laws, policies, and humanity—a small number of folks have responded in an agitated, violent fashion. Hurt by rejection and derogatory rhetoric pointing to inadequacies, they resort to violence as a means to overwhelm—and thereby overcome—the unbearable feelings called up by rejection and shame. Aggression becomes the means by which to salvage self-respect and redeem oneself to peers—an assertion that we are good enough, and are ‘not going to take it' (in essence echoing the childhood demand to 'take it back'—to take back what was said).

And so the spiral—which perpetuates itself—threatens to begin.

In order to interrupt its course, we must move forward--whatever the direction--with respect and fairness.